Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requested edit filters

This page is for people without the abusefilter-modify permission or people without sufficient knowledge about the coding involved to make requests to enact edit filters.

Private filters should not be discussed in detail. Please use the mailing list if you have specific concerns or questions about the content of hidden filters.

Please add a new section at the bottom using the following format:

==Filter name==
*'''Task''': What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply?
*'''Reason''': Why is the filter needed? ~~~~

Bear the following in mind:

  • Filters are applied to all edits. Therefore, problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an edit filter.
  • Each filter takes time to run, making editing (and to some extent other things) slightly slower. The time is only a few milliseconds per filter, but with enough filters that adds up. When the system is near its limit, adding a new filter may require removing another filter in order to keep the system within its limits.
  • There is a limit to what filters can check for. More complex, non-essential tasks, such as those that need to perform a more in-depth check of the page or fetch information that the filter system does not have access to, are better served by separate software, run by an individual user on their own machine or dedicated server such as Tool Labs, rather than those used to actually host Wikipedia.
  • It used to be called the abuse filter for a reason. Contributors are not expected to have read all 200+ policies, guidelines and style pages. Trivial formatting mistakes and edits that at first glance look fine but go against some obscure style guideline or arbitration ruling are not suitable candidates for an edit filter – quite apart from performance concerns, if it doesn't harm the project, it is best not to hassle new contributors because of it.
  • To prevent the creation of pages with certain names, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist is usually a better way to handle the problem - see MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist for details.
  • To prevent the addition of problematic external links, please make your request at the spam blacklist.



Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits[edit]

Just a note: it probably would be more useful if this filter, once triggered, would block further instances around the same time the bot reports to AIV for triggering the filter 5+ times instead of simply logging while allowing further disruption. It can take 20 minutes and over before derp revert vandals get blocked while a small army of patrollers must remain active to revert each edit, which appears suboptimal (i.e. see the still-ongoing 114.17.235.146). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So disruption persisted for 34 minutes for this IP address alone. —PaleoNeonate – 02:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
29 minutes before 46.150.88.31 was stopped/blocked. —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support this for a trial period. Checking the last 500 times this filter fired, just a handful of the Ips that triggered it are not blocked as of now. CrowCaw 19:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Audiovisual Communicators[edit]

  • Task: Flag or disallow edits containing the phrase "Audiovisual Communicators", "Raven Broadcasting Corporation" or similar
  • Reason: Said networks are a recurring subject by Bertrand101, a serial hoaxer with a decade worth of habitual disruption. Since most of his edits mention the companies in question, flagging them would al least slow this guy down. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... Raven Broadcasting.... Anyway, are there legitimate uses of these terms? Such as appear in DWJM and Tiger 22 Media Corporation, or are those his work also? CrowCaw 17:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the edits you pointed out are indeed legit, though Bert has a habit of fraudulently attributing said companies to whichever (hoax) radio article he'd come up with. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Switching text from Israel to Palestine or Indian to Pakistan[edit]

Task Add a tag when text is switched between Israel to Palestine (or vv) or India to Pakistan (or vv). This would apply to article space only (and not to article talk pages). A separate filter for each would be best as the ARBPIA filter could also block IPs from doing this.

Reason These switches are a very common low level breach of ARBPIA and ARBIP and not easy to spot. This would aid editors to spot possible breaches and of course to advise new editors of the sanctions. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Something like this?
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
article_namespace == 0 &
added_lines irlike "\bPalestine\b" &
old_wikitext irlike "\bIsreal\b"
Haven't done edit filters before, but have been trying to learn about them. zchrykng (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Copied and tweaked from the Nazism filter. zchrykng (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zchrykng: Thanks, I'm pretty clueless though. It might work. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller, okay, so that pattern was wrong, but this one works on the test wiki. Can someone else review and see if it is worth including here?
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
article_namespace == 0 &
"Palestine" in added_lines &
"Israel" in old_wikitext
zchrykng (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually looks like this is a better option.
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
article_namespace == 0 &
"Palestine" in added_lines &
!("Palestine" in old_wikitext) &
"Israel" in old_wikitext
Just need someone with the right perms to look and see if this is good. Maybe just as a warning. zchrykng (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Phone spam (new number for 793)[edit]

  • Task: Please add "1-855-479-2999" to the existing filter against phone spam (793), if it's technically possible.
  • Reason: Increased recent phone spam. See contributions of User:Sabnampayal. GermanJoe (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like to second this request. Lindabilliams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was spamming this phone number today. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding Cyrillic to User:Jimbo Wales[edit]

  • Task: The filter should prevent adding large amounts of Cyrillic (or specific Russian text) to Jimbo's userpage.
  • Reason: This has been a frequent pattern of vandalism seen recently, as with this edit. SemiHypercube 11:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. Wait for MusikAmimal. Dragon of Shanghai 🐉 21:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but Jimbo normally doesn't want people prohibited from editing his page for long periods of time, which is why his page is normally only protected for a few hours at a time, so I don't think he would like a filter. Nonetheless, we normally do not have filters for single pages, as other methods are better, such as the protection I mentioned earlier. Nihlus 21:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nihlus: Keep in mind that a filter would still let other edits through, but not the kind mentioned. That, and this would save editors the tedious work of reverting the edits, protecting the page preventing others from editing, etc. If it concerns you that much you could say something on his talkpage. SemiHypercube 01:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Filters should be carefully selected as they can disrupt the time it takes to edit something. A single page edit filter is not worth it. Nihlus 01:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Move review/discuss with closer warning[edit]

  • Task: Warn an editor to attempt to discuss an RM result with the closer of that RM prior to filing a move review
  • Reason: We've had a recent discussion about this matter at Wikipedia talk:Move review, and I thought an edit filter might be a potential solution. Basically, the idea is that when one uses Template:Move review list to file a move review, and one doesn't fill in the closer/closer_section parameters, the filter should be triggered, warning the user to the effect that they should attempt to discuss the closure with the closer before filing an MR, per the MR procedure. Is something like this possible? RGloucester 18:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    I believe filters are generally not made for issues like that which are neither disruption and not made compulsory by policy. There's already a similar message displayed atop edit pane when anyone tries to edit Wikipedia:Move review or any of its subages. I think that suffices, and its wording can be tweaked. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well, such alerts are used for DS, which I guess means they are prescribed by policy...? However, such edits do result in disruption...is there any policy or guideline that prohibits using the technical tools we have available to minimise headaches? This really seems like a common sense solution to me...the alternatives are undesirable, and the edit notice has had no effect. RGloucester 16:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well, I know it's technically possible but that does not invalidate my point above that we don't make a single-page filter for things that are neither disruption and not made compulsory by policy. DS is quite not good example here, because it's a special case mandated by ARBCOM and made compulsory by policy. Mere failure to fill |closer= in {{Move review list}} is not disruption as it seems you're suggesting, and an editor can decides to ignore the template but gives discussion link with the closer in his statement and that's perfectly OK. There's no policy that prohibits using technical tools to minimize disruption, but there's a guideline on what level of disruption needs deployment of that tool. And, in this case there's not even a disruption to start with. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
There is indeed disruption...we have tens of thousands of bytes of text at move review that could've been avoided if the complainant followed the procedure to speak to the closer. That's the definition of disruption, in my view. My proposal was simply, have this edit filter, and just like the DS edit filter, allow the editor to continue with their edit after they've read the warning brought up by the filter, even if they don't fill in the parameter. It would not stop them editing, just make them aware of the nature of the situation, and potentially prevent needless move reviews, which are a huge bureaucratic waste of editors' time. But, that's fine. No need to look for solutions, let's just have more problems... RGloucester 17:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
If an edit filter is not the way to go, we do at least have the |closer= and |closer_section= parameters, and in addition, the edit notice's wording and emphasis have been tweaked this date. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  15:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ligma again[edit]

  • Task: Prevent new users from adding "ligma" to articles
  • Reason: This was requested by Aspening a while back, and nothing came of it. The vandalism is still ongoing, see 1 2 3. There seem to be few legitimate uses of this word. This could be added to an existing general vandalism filter, e.g. 260. Note that the match will probably need to be on \bligma\b or similar, or there will be FPs from Seligmann and other words. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Taslimson spam[edit]

  1. Task: Prevent addition of "Taslimson" into articles
  2. Reason: Someone with multiple IPs have added a non-notable name to articles (usually Indonesian Americans [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] but also other articles e.g. here and here. The edits are straight-up spamming an unimportant name and a non-existent "foundation" all over the place, and is quite an annoyance at this point. At this point, there are absolutely no use (or media coverage outside blogs, see here) of the name in other contexts within Wikipedia beyond complaints about this vandal. Note that this filter has been requested six months ago, and at least four ANI notices [6] [7] [8] [9]. Juxlos (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)